Red Mosquito

Bammer wrote:I did a quiz on Facebook yesterday

McParadigm wrote:

Bammer wrote:I did a quiz on Facebook yesterday

Well, I've changed my mind.

None of us should be allowed to vote.

Bammer wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bammer wrote:I did a quiz on Facebook yesterday

Well, I've changed my mind.

None of us should be allowed to vote.

You heard it here first.

McParadigm wrote:

Bammer wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bammer wrote:I did a quiz on Facebook yesterday

Well, I've changed my mind.

None of us should be allowed to vote.

You heard it here first.

I just read a Washington Post article titled My Ex-Husband's Mother is Still My Mother-in-Law. So Facebook quiz wins the political insight award.

God help us all.

ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interests and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better… [Samuel Francis in Chronicles]

Imagine giving this advice to a Republican presidential candidate: What if you stopped calling yourself a conservative and instead just promised to make America great again?

What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs? What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better health care at a reasonable price? What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society — something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America — you simply promised to restore the Middle American core — the economic and cultural losers of globalization — to their rightful place in America? What if you said you would restore them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?

That's pretty much the advice that columnist Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in a 1996 essay, "From Household to Nation," in Chronicles magazine. Samuel Francis was a paleo-conservative intellectual who died in 2005. Earlier in his career he helped Senator East of North Carolina oppose the Martin Luther King holiday. He wrote a white paper recommending the Reagan White House use its law enforcement powers to break up and harass left-wing groups. He was an intellectual disciple of James Burnham's political realism, and Francis' political analysis always had a residue of Burnham's Marxist sociology about it. He argued that the political right needed to stop playing defense — the globalist left won the political and cultural war a long time ago — and should instead adopt the insurgent strategy of communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. Francis eventually turned into a something resembling an all-out white nationalist, penning his most racist material under a pen name. Buchanan didn't take Francis' advice in 1996, not entirely. But 20 years later, "From Household to Nation," reads like a political manifesto from which the Trump campaign springs.

Birds in Hell wrote:Interesting piece: http://theweek.com/articles/599577/how- ... paign-1996

turned2black wrote:Finally! Nate Silver's "I was wrong about Trump's chances" column.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one ... -of-trump/

turned2black wrote:Finally! Nate Silver's "I was wrong about Trump's chances" column.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one ... -of-trump/

4/5 wrote:

turned2black wrote:Finally! Nate Silver's "I was wrong about Trump's chances" column.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one ... -of-trump/

And right on cue the National Review comes out against Trump.

turned2black wrote:I don't think people realize the damaging effects that nominating a complete dud like Romney actually had on the GOP or, more specifically, the psyche of conservative voters. Many would rather die a fiery death with Trump or Cruz than play it safe.

turned2black wrote:I don't think people realize the damaging effects that nominating a complete dud like Romney actually had on the GOP or, more specifically, the psyche of conservative voters. Many would rather die a fiery death with Trump or Cruz than play it safe.

Rob wrote:

turned2black wrote:I don't think people realize the damaging effects that nominating a complete dud like Romney actually had on the GOP or, more specifically, the psyche of conservative voters. Many would rather die a fiery death with Trump or Cruz than play it safe.

As someone from Connecticut, a place where most republicans are pretty moderate, I have to say I agree completely. All I hear is how the math doesn't support Trump or the evidence/history points in a different direction. For better or worse, the country is changing. It's happening on the other side too. Having Obama in office the last 7 years has tempered the anti-establishment attitude a bit on the left, but it's trending toward the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party. Maybe a bit too late for Bernie himself, but the ideology has taken root. I feel we have a few wild and polarized (even by today's standard) years ahead of us.

Bammer wrote:Fucking idiots out there are all "Hilary sucks! Feel the Bern!"

If Hilary wins the Dem nomination same assholes will be all "Yeah Hilary rocks!"

tommymtcom wrote:

Bammer wrote:Fucking idiots out there are all "Hilary sucks! Feel the Bern!"

If Hilary wins the Dem nomination same assholes will be all "Yeah Hilary rocks!"

I'm not so sure about that. I think a lot of people who support Bernie would vote for Hilary if it came down to it, but I think they would do so begrudgingly. Among Sanders supporters I think Hilary is seen as just another bought out insider who doesn't truly represent their interests.